Talk:Prem Rawat

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

• This talk page contains numerous non-archive subpages involving past disagreements, including: /Bio, /Bio proposal, /Bio proposal/talk, /Bio proposal nr2, /Bio proposal nr2/talk, /Comments, /GA Review March 07, /GA review 1, /Teachings, /Teachings (draft), /criticism, /lead, /temp1
• Sources: /scholars, /journalists, /WIGMJ, /First person accounts, /Lifestyle, /Bibliography, /mahatmas, /Leader of
• Reference quotations removed from inline cites: /References
• Related talk of a merged page: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (and archives of that talk page: Archive 14 • Archive 13 • Archive 12 •Archive 11 • Archive 10 •Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1)

Archives

Archive index June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34) (Archive 35) (Archive 36) (Archive 37) (Archive 38) (Archive 39) April 2009 April 2009 – June 2009 – May 2010 (Archive 43) (Archive 44)

Mediation

I have asked for the Mediation Cabal to provide mediation over the disputed sentence in the lead.[1] Momento (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Ronk01 I am a mediator with the Mediation Cabal, and I have taken your case. I am currently reviewing the facts, and would ask exactly what you want me to do, do you want me to make a ruling, or just mediate?Ronk01 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For me, please do both. Read all our stuff and tell us where we are going wrong, and also tell us whether you think that sentence as it stands belongs in the article. Thanks for being willing to do the hard stuff. Rumiton (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Ronk01, my understanding is that this situation needs a ruling rather that meditation because I believe the situation is clear cut. If the sentence doesn't conform to the requirements of a lead sentence, it shouldn't be in the lead. The next step that would require mediation is whether then sentence can go in the article in it's current form since several editors believe it is confusing and contradictory. Thanks.Momento (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that proposed sequence. I would rather wait to make changes until there's agreement. That's due to the long history of conflict on this topic, which has resulted in two previous ArbCom cases. See previous discussions of this sentence: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 41#Semi-quote from Aldridge, Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 41#Aldridge citation, Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 41#Some additional comments. Some of us are tired out by this fighting. It's regrettable that this one sentence has already consumed so many words, and that it isn't possible to make progress from year to year. Several other proposals have been offered, including moving it to the body of the article, but no compromise has been accepted. The material in question closely follows an excellent source.   Will Beback  talk  10:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Largely sharing Rumiton's and Momento's approach. Thank you, Ronk01, and I wish you find the whole thing more challenging and interesting than arduous and boring.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like those parties involved in the dispute to tell me why (or why not) the sentence should remain, and if it should, how do you propose to better integrate it into the article. Please remember, no edit warring. Ronk01 (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read the recent discussions? Some are archived at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 42#Lede and Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 42#Lede not representative of article, and the rest are still on this page. Basically, this text was added by user:Pergamino, a sock of user:Jossi who had claimed to have retired. It was altered and later moved, but due to ongoing edit wars previous mediators restored a relatively stable version which included it. The entire article has been almost untouched for the past seven months, which has been a welcome respite from conflict for many of us.

As for the material itself, it is a close summary of a significant source. It describes how the subject and his message changed over the years. (The subject came to prominence at age eight when he succeeded his father, a successful guru in India. For the first eight years in that role much of the mission was run by his mother and older brothers. He then took control and changed many aspects of his message and the organizations that supported it. While still a minor in the early 1970s, the message was heavily promoted as bringing world peace. Later, that focus on world peace was dropped and achieving inner peace took its place. This sentence reflects that shift.

As for how to resolve this dispute, one option is to do nothing. That option has support, but is apparently rejected entirely some editors. Another option is to copy the sentence so it exists in both the intro and the text. That would address the complaint that the intro doesn't reflect the text. I believe that has also been rejected. A third option would be to move the sentence to the text (presumably the "Teachings" section). That too has been rejected.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have read much of the recent discussion, and propose that the sentence remain, but that content reflecting this statement be added to the article (if as you say, this is a summary, there must be more detailed information regarding this) This serves both to keep the sentence in the lead (deletion is out of the question) and to include the sentence's topic in the article. Ronk01 (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Teachings" section is, in turn, a summary of Teachings of Prem Rawat. Dealing with this is like picking at a loose thread on suit, only to have the suit come apart at the seams. The problems with this sentence are small compared to the problems that arise from trying to fix it. Are we all willing to spend the next year or two dealing with the fallout?   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you are coming from, so what would you like to see done with this sentence? Ronk01 (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be to do nothing. As a compromise, I'm willing to move it down to the teachings section.   Will Beback  talk  05:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ronk01, I see that your username is very recently established. Last year we had some serious havoc here caused by an admin who turned out to be 16 years old, and who then got himself banned for bad wiki behaviour. Please don't take offense at this, but would you mind reassuring us that you are, 1) an adult, 2) of sufficient real life and wikipedia experience to help out here in a mature way? Sincere thanks. Rumiton (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence isn't a "close summary" of a significant source. It is a almost verbatim, unattributed copy of this sentence by Aldridge - "Originally he aspired to bring about world peace but he now focuses on the needs of the individual, which he says takes priority over the demands of society". It is merely one person's opinion wrapped around this phrase from Blau - "the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace". Prominently featuring Aldridge's opinion in the Lead creates a situation that gives UNDUE:WEIGHT to one source's view, which isn't mentioned in the article by him or any other source. Aldridge's opinion is in itself is an EXCEPTIONAL CLAIM since no other source makes it. It is not surprising that a religious/spiritual meditation teacher talks about "Peace"; for more than 40 years Rawat's talks are almost solely concerned with "Inner Peace" as the article makes abundantly clear. Nor does it refer to the major change in Rawat's teachings as explained in the article and alluded to by Will. The change Aldridge describes is clearly a change from a focus on "world peace" to a focus on "the individual". The major change that is explained clearly in the article is the change from an "Indian based" philosophy to a "universal non cultural" philosophy. Which is correctly summarised in the Lead with this - " He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable. The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s". As per this section - "In 1980, Rawat removed all the "religious" aspects of the movement and declared he now wanted "no movement whatsoever". The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques. Once called "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" but affirmed his status as a master. Scholars such as Kranenborg and Chryssides describe the departure from divine connotations.". And "In 1983 the Divine Light Mission was renamed Elan Vital and Rawat closed the last western ashrams, marking the end of his use of Indian methods for international objectives.".Momento (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, first I will respond to Rumiton, Without getting myself banned for revealing personal information, I can tell you that I am an adult, and that I have been editing Wikipedia for over five years via various IP's, I just recently got tired of dealing with silverlocked pages, and got an account. I take no offense, I have dealt with admins who I am fairly sure are middle schoolers with far too much time on their hands. To respond to the second comment, The sentence Momento proposed does follow the content of the article (and the sources) quite nicely as far as I can tell, but I would like to hear from other users regarding this before I go any furtherRonk01 (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhmm... did I miss something there? I don't see where Momento has proposed a sentence, and last I read, he wanted the entire sentence stricken from the lead, and would accept no alternative. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"- " He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable.[1] The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s". " while in the current state it is rather POV, with some work, it could turn into something, as it does actually reflect the article, albeit in a rather POV manner. Ronk01 (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, Ronk01, I am muchly reassured. I am not sure what you are proposing, though. The sentence Momento quoted is already in the lead. Are you suggesting it should stand alone as a summary of the evolution of Prem Rawat's teachings? That is, we should remove the (confusing to me) statement about world peace versus individuals? Rumiton (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that removal of the world peace vs. individual teachings could be founded the simple fact that it is confusing to the reader, but if it were clarified, it could be usefull (providing it receives sufficent treatment in the article) Ronk01 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If we simply move the sentence to the article, then it becomes part of the treatment of the issue summarized by the intro.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but I would want to see more information regarding the shift, along with more sources. Ronk01 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the articles and the additional sources excerpted on this page?   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of them, and I believe that they are reliable sources, but I am not sure if they are enough to write enough to flesh out that sentence into a defensible paragraph. Ronk01 (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need a whole paragraph? If we simply move the whole sentence down to the "teaching" sentence it will fit quite well there and we won't need to make further changes.   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in, but Will, Ronk01 has called this sentence "confusing to the reader" and noted that it is not sufficiently supported by sources. You yourself have called it "clumsy" and I and others have said that "it doesn't make sense." I know you fear that floodgates will open, but why not get rid of it and just see what happens? Rumiton (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me ask you about those floodgates. What's next after this? Momento has refused to answer. Is there any other text that needs to be fixed? If so, let's look at all of it at once rather than spending the next year fixing one sentence after another.   Will Beback  talk  03:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to but in Rumiton but I must reply to Will before it gets left behind. "What's next after this? Momento has refused to answer". That sounds like a line from Jethro Tull. I've answered every question and I've already brought up the time warp of - "Rawat has established his teachings in over eighty countries, and in the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West." - which starts off with the situation in "2006" before advancing to the "early 1970's". The whole "Charisma and Leadership" section is UNDUE:WEIGHT. Do you know of any other Wiki BLP that has an entire section devoted to an esoteric yet general discussion about obvious qualities. I see no point in the whole section. If you want speed Will, come across to "Teachings". And now back to Rumiton's reply to Will.Momento (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable suggestion. Give me a few minutes to have another look. Rumiton (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, as I said a while ago, I don't like "...established his teachings in over 80 countries." While grammatically it makes sense, it really doesn't tell the reader anything. How does one "establish one's teachings"? Apart from that I can live with the few clumsy bits of syntax I can see later on. Of course, if recent, reliable sources should appear, we should look at them openly. Rumiton (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Ronk01, the point that Will has raised re:the floodgates, needs to be addressed by you as mediator, not least because your own approach seems to envisage work on the article beyond the single sentence under consideration. If we are indeed going to reopen this article (and all its relatives) for wide scale revision, it would be better to know that at the begining. As it is this article has achieved incidental stability under it's own weight but as soon as you start shifting things around, that stability will fail. If for example one starts with: He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable.[1] The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s". we have to assess the veracity of these statements which although 'sourced' are demonstrably false - the DLM was not disbanded, it was renamed, while the whole notion of Indian/non Indian aspects is dependent upon clumsy semantics, to the extent that it amounts to little more than a straw dog argument. We have a fair proposal which meets a 'good enough' test to move the the sentence Momento doesn't like. If we are indeed going to go beyond that proposal within the mediation then the context of that should be the Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat. Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton, how do you like: ...has students (followers?) in over 80 countries? Sounds more understandable. Maybe something we all can casually find consensus over, while we're at it.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Any teacher with 80 students could fly them to 80 countries and make that claim. I agree with Rumiton, it should go and as the editor who put it in, I'm going to relocate it until we decide whether it should go. If any one is upset by this please revert and we can add it to the talk page.Momento (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Relocating didn't work. The "established teachings in over 80 countries" sentence looked as 'out of place' at the end of the paragraph as it did at the front. Once agin, please revert if you disagree and I won't mention it again.Momento (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Rainer, thanks for trying, but it still doesn't mean anything, and it's a bit like pinning a "kick me" sign to your lower back. Future editors will do exactly that. Let's try for a version that is neutral and factual, and neither hostile nor promotional. Personally, I don't think we are far from that at the moment. Rumiton (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that the article merits a full review, but not major changes, I just think that we need to look over the sourcing of the article and ensure that it is up to date. I do agree that moving the sentence (with some major revisions to relfect valid sources) is wise, However, I do not see this as "opening the floodgates," since we would be reevaluating, not rewriting. The article must reflect the most current sourcing. Finally, I would like to take an informal vite regarding the sentence. I have set up a section for this on the casefile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronk01 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your role in this huge project going to be? Are you going to be doing this review? Are you mediating this dispute or are you going to be judging what content is acceptable? I'm happy to have you mediating, but I don't think you have as much experience in judging content or policy issues as other editors here, so I'm not confident in this as a process.   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01, your response is not logical. If a review of sources is undertaken it must axiomatically be envisaged that some sources will be judged unfit and that others will be added - this must necessarily involve rewriting those parts of the articles (all those covered by the Prem Rawat WP project) where the prefered new sources provide new or alternate data. There is no way to minimise the scope of the review, and there is no way at the outset to set limits on what may or may not arise from the review. Perhaps you would have the courtesy to read the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat before proposing to reinvent the wheel. I would also ask that you give a clear explantion regarding your approach to the discipline of writing history, given that you say "The article must reflect the most current sourcing."which seems to imply that you consider "most recent" to equal "most accurate". --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify my statement, I do not wish to judge content, but I do believe that the article needs to be reviewed throughly, and not just once sentence in the introdution. Additionally, I should also clarify my statement regarding new sourcing, I merely wish that we use the most current, but also the most accurate sources. I am sorry that most of my comment is nonsense, I disagree with most of it myself (I was nearly asleep at the time, that's what an 18 hour hospital shif does to you, especially when 10 of those hours are in surgery) I do think that some of the sources need to be checked for validity (which, given my unfamiliarity with the project, I could not do) as many editors are attacking this source of that one, we need irrefutable souring to back our information, remember, this is a BLP. Ronk01 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you think the article needs to be 'reviewed thoroughly'. On the one hand I agree. Go to Google and type in 'Prem Rawat'. You will see dozens of websites amongst which many are by individuals passionately opposed to Prem Rawat. There's a mountain of criticism and missing information out there! Much of it can be properly sourced too. Much of it has been taken out already at some stage by premies. There's so much that even I, as an interested party, have no time or stomach to wade through in its entirety. Clearly this man is a living person who is surrounded by passionate controversy, mostly now deriving from critical former followers although in the past, when his ambitions were more of a 'I have come to save the Planet' nature, his higher public profile drew plenty of well-documented media derision. Is all this reflected proportionately in the article? I think not, and that's something might want to be redressed in a review. What I strongly oppose is that this 'thorough review' be overly influenced, as it has been, by current followers of Prem Rawat or equally by his critics. As I see it, It is the formers (followers) predominant, ardent & aggressive editing that is responsible for the toned-down 'puff piece advertorial' that this article has been accused of being.PatW (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Universally

The source actually says "the wider acceptance of his teachings", so I've changed "universally" to "widely". I think it's best to discuss edits before making them. Rumiton, Will Beback, Rainer and I all expressed problems with the material I removed and it was material that I had originally inserted so I was removing material I had added rather than someone else's. Is there any material you have added to the article you think should be removed?Momento (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the rash of undiscussed edits. I hope it won't continue.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I do too. Rumiton (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But the two edits have been great improvements. Now lt's get rid of the aldridge sentence.Momento (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing "universally" to "wider" is not a "great improvement". The obsession with the Aldridge material, from a scholarly source, is getting bizarre.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a great improvement. "Widely" is closer to the source and getting rid of the "80 students" is another. I'm not attached to Aldridge. I'm happy for his opinion to float off into the universe.Momento (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Momento please self revert your last edit. Widely is not closer to wider than is universally, it is just equally unrelated. Your arguments about Aldridge have not achieved consensus and IMO are unlikely to do so unless you change your approach which looks ever more like Wikipedia:I just don't like it. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nik, it doesn't matter what we think, it is what the source wrote and therefore "widely" is what we use. And PatW, please delete your ad hominem attack. FACT: Revera removed "universally" but no one has criticised him for removing it, only me for repairing it. FACT: The four editors who have been actively discussing the sentence "Rawat has established his teachings in over eighty countries" have all objected to it. Rumiton and I would like it removed, Rainer doesn't like it and Will Beback suggested, "Why don't we just undo the edit to begin with?"[2] As the editor who put it in, I think I am entitled to repair my own mistake with the support of those who have been discussing it. If anyone has an argument to a) revert the sentence to before Revera's edit and/or b) reinsert the sentence everyone objects to, please make them but stop the abuse.Momento (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You've already written above that the source is "the wider acceptance of his teachings" In what usage in normal English is "wider" equivalent to "widley". "Wider" is relative - two microns are wider than one micron but there are very few contexts where something distributed over two microns would be described as 'widely spread'. "Widely" as an adverb confers the quality of widness, which is simply not justified by the source. This is basic English, so please revert to the less poor previous version.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead sentence says "more widely" which makes it equivalent to "wider".Momento (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"More widely" isn't equivalent to "wider" but that need not now concern us. The rhetorical splitting of the otherwise inviolable infinitive 'universally', had the advantage of deflecting focus from the rest of the sentence, if you now insist on seeking to make the sentence functional then it opens it up for a precise test against the source which is - "He came to recognize that the Indian influences on his followers in the West were a hindrance to the wider acceptance of his teachings." The text :"He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable.[5]" shifts the whole meaning of Hunt's words from a description of Rawat's 'recognition' onto the imputed action 'abandoned', which is then accompanied by the unjustified (by any source)intentionality of making his message more widely acceptable. The only thing to do now is delete the whole sentence as it is wholly unreferenced. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor Behaviour & Mediation

new section created to split content discussion from mediation mechanics --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

PatW, while I appreciate your concern, and am considering your opinion (as I do all opinions) I would ask you to please remain calm when discussing article content. Ronk01 (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I announced unilaterally above that in the interests of editor cooperation I would begin deleting any personally insulting or anti-teamwork posts that might appear here, from whichever side of the opinion divide. Nobody objected, and it seems to have been a good way to proceed, as it has resulted in a couple of potential explosive devices being defused. The above PatW post seems a pretty good example. Let us leave the past behind us, where it belongs. Rumiton (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are to delete my comments? This is just another example of you followers of Prem Rawat being authoritarian, controlling, prefectorial and pushy which drove many, many people away from editing this article in the past? This is the sort of history newcomers like Ronk need to be aware of when dealing with completely biased followers of Prem Rawat on a mission here to 'clean up' the article. Ronk may have detected a note of frustration in my comment but it was utterly sincere and I think, a very important and relevant point in the light that, since several followers returned from exile, history is clearly repeating itself. What on earth makes you think you have the right to remove comments from this discussion? You guys have started a new controversy - take the reaction. Too passionate for your taste? Your comments about 'teamwork' and 'collegiality' etc are a transparent pretence. It's clear from your action deleting my post that the only team you want to permit here is one comprised of people who either share your POV or you can soften up to think you have a harmless agenda. PatW (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, deletion of my own and other editors' comments on my own talk-page (!) was a trick that Jossi tried on me some time back. Details can be read here (about half way through the small section titled "Contentious/BLP"). Revera (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And...how indicative of all the revisionist attitude of Prem Rawat followers is your last sentence Rumiton? "Let us leave the past behind us, where it belongs." A Freudian slip if ever there was. Ronk, are you aware of the ongoing major criticicism of Prem Rawat and his organisation that drew many to strongly object to the revisionism exercised here? I can tell you that many people have taken great offence to a whole raft of misrepresentations about Rawat's past that have been promulgated here and elsewhere. Now do you get the message Rumiton? We need to learn from the past NOT bury it. Immediately that translates into anyone dealing with previously banned editors should not take their comments at face value and rather should be aware of their history. PatW (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ronk...I guess the ball's in your court. Are you glad you came? Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I withdraw the last sentence. It was unintentionally uncollegial. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK since Rumiton apparently doesn't wish to reinstate my former expression, here it is again but (as a gesture of compliance) with anything suggestive of me not being suitably 'calm' removed and more or less as a list of prosaic points:

• I am disheartened that Prem Rawat followers are showing signs of repeating their past pattern of 'assumed ownership' of this article.
• Momento's recent language and actions convey to me a haughty disregard and contempt for the opinions of others in which he appears to revel. His co-editor Jossi and he did this before which caused endless trouble.
• To be informed of the 'Rawat Followers' attitude to teamwork one might want to learn from Jossi Fresco:

Jossi eventually admitted (as a 'Parthian Shot' to his departure from Wikipedia) that he'd felt that he was a player on the 'Ultimate Team' and that 'in the Ultimate Game you don't need to play by the rules' . I took the insinuation to be unethical. ie. that followers of Prem Rawat are superior and exempt from social rules in a 'game' where achieving the greater end of revising Rawats image to suit their/his agenda is the end goal.

• User:Jossi was employed by Prem Rawat and used his administrator status against critics of Prem Rawat.
• It would be a shame if Ronk was naive/uninformed about the past and allowed himself to be manipulated by partisan editors and opened the doors to them ravaging this article (again), leaving only a squeaky clean partisan, revised version.
• Ronk please thoroughly examine the past of this article before you become the unwitting catalyst to another very nasty protracted wikipedia war.
• Ronk, are you aware of the responsibility I am implying that you have here in the light of the articles controversial history?
• Have you thoroughly checked out how the behaviour of Jossi actually drew Wikipedia into some public disrepute?
• Some of us here fear that if you open the door to Momento you will invite a relentless chipping away of the article by Rawat followers (like Momento and Rumiton' .
• In the light of the language and recent actions here of those who have returned from exile it has hard not to be skeptical of their repentance and more suggestive that their return heralds an increased determination to serve the man they revere's need to revise his controversial past.
• I would like to warn Ronk that historically Prem Rawats followers have showed no qualms about exerting extremely determined, pretty much full-time commitment to exerting dominance and control over this and other articles about Prem Rawat. My point being that their religious /zealous concern went beyond normal interested editing into an area that was unethical and eventually resulted in Arboms/ expulsions etc.
• Also their tactics - in my experience (especially with Momento & Jossi) - have been to chide and hold in such disgust - the opinions, evidence and arguments of all people who criticise Prem Rawat - that they draw them out into such endless bluster that critics simply loose heart, run out of time and leave in frustration.
• There is a wealth of interesting and relevant information missing from this article - mostly of a critical nature - which these people do not want to include and have unfortunately largely succeeded in suppressing.
• Another tactic of the followers is to invite mediation etc and then pretend to be all sweetness and light and to cast anyone who expresses passionate resistance to their designs, as a 'hate group' member or someone only capable of flames. What is often missed is the history of constant baiting of critics by the Rawat followers.
• Their tactic has been to outdo the commitment and time their opponents have, or are prepared to invest in editing this article. This is effective since followers of the subject of this article have an un-matched level of interest - albeit highly biased.
• My approach to this article was to attempt to edit as impartially as possible for someone who is quite critical of Prem Rawat and also was very involved in his past. It quickly became apparent that this was not possible to do, given my relative lack of time. So I decided to limit my contributions to arguing on the Talk Page rather than to follow the 'exit route' from this article taken by the many others I mentioned who were utterly frustrated at the prospect of engaging the partisan guards of the article. I ultimately felt that ethically it would be the best outcome if folllowers and ex-followers BOTH abandoned the article to truly impartial people, maybe restricting their activities to the Talk Page. The nearest it came to that was when the premies were banned from the article after the last Arbcom and there were a couple of real impartial editors (by which I mean: neither with a history as a critic or follower of Rawat) - namely Wilbeack, Maelefique and some others. Since then there has been the year of stability Will has spoken of. PatW (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for calmly restating your point. I undeerstand your concerns, and ask that no major eidts to the main page be made until we can resolve this peacefully here on the talk page. Also, do not think that I will not have ArbCom impose topic bans on disruptive editors. Ronk01 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to note that the opinion poll/vote on the meidation page is still open, please vote if you have not already, all are welcome. Ronk01 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ronk01, I don't think a post that says "Momento's recent language and actions convey to me a haughty disregard and contempt for the opinions of others in which he appears to revel", "if you open the door to Momento you will invite a relentless chipping away of the article by Rawat followers (like Momento and Rumiton") and "Momento tactics ..has been to chide and hold in such disgust" is either calm or acceptable. This article is under probation and "any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty. Maelefique, Will Beback and PatW are quick to complain about me but PatW's posts go unremarked. PatW has been warned many times about his personal attacks and incivility, so please don't be surprised that, in the continued absence of any action by you and others, I will ask an uninvolved admin to block PatW if there's another one.Momento (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more specific, his comment was much more civil than the previous one was. Ronk01 (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, like incest, it's all relative. (Sorry, my attempt at a joke.) Anyway, I don't believe a careful reading of this article's history shows anything like the picture painted by PatW. It seems to be an attempt to divide the editors working here now, to make it impossible for them to cooperate. The essence of "disruptive" I would think. This has happened before. Let us not allow it. The guidelines re "personal attacks and incivility" need to be vigorously enforced or we are going to relive the article's past. None of us enjoyed it the first time. Rumiton (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton it was uncivil of you to delete another editor's Talk page contribution, especially so when the editor was addressing a Mediator. It's no use you complaining about other editors refering to your past behaviour if after a years absence four Rawat supporters turn up on this article all at the same time, all singing from the same hymn sheet then the testWP:DUCK reasonably applies. WP:AGF is not obligatory in the face of contrary evidence.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Talking of incest, doesn't Jossi's attempt to 'own' this article come to mind, Rumiton? Maybe you might not want to see that, and certainly you're entitled to express your own opinion. But please bear in mind that it's not the only one (neither is mine).

You recommend "a careful reading of this article's history". Have read it - all? Carefully? Have you any idea how many words it runs to? My guess would be that the count would exceed even that of "War and Peace"!

Anyway, for the record, PatW's precis/summary of the way this article has been edited might not meet with your approval, but it sounds pretty damn accurate to me. Just thought you might like to bear that in mind, just in case you should be tempted to try to 'take ownership' of the article again. (See evidence) Revera (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It worries me to hear that Rumiton and Momento are characterising the important factor needed here as being just civility and collegiality. It's all very fine to look back at the past of this article and say 'none of us enjoyed it the first time' as if to negate any responsibility for the divisions. Also there's no need for me to disrupt and divide editors here. That is a smoke-screen to cover a pretence of 'agreement'. The editors are divided in POV -there's nothing we can do to change that. Rumiton and Momento are followers of Prem Rawat and I and one or two others are ex-followers. We disagree. What Rumiton and Momento want is for ex-premies to leave them alone to smooth talk the mediators they cry foul to. Running to 3rd parties to complain about my incivility could be construed as somewhat hypocritical. Jossi formerly used his admin status literally to bait and block people who opposed his premie team efforts to control this article. He spent his entire time trying to block me etc. His blocking of Rawat critics was itself drawn into question as being uncivil and inappropriate because of his direct affiliation with Prem Rawat. How about we simply live with the fact that we feel very strongly and we accept each others mutual disagreements like adults, and maybe with a some humour? Do Rumiton and Momento want to make this a 'civility' competition? I think that itself is a distraction that they hope will play in their favour. I'm increasingly seeing how this 'collegiality' thing has historically been a weapon against people who don't have the time to waste following, what I perceive to be, highly insubstantial, long-drawn out bluster. A case in point is when we argued, literally ad nauseam, about whether Rawat thought of himself and wanted others to believe he was God or God-like and hence, whether we should include quotes here about that. Guess what? The followers argued vociferously to deny and excise any thing that suggested that. I, and many others who enjoined the discussion, manifestly became simply worn down by Momento's (in particular) 'argumentative style' which frankly I call insubstantial bluster. It is a pertinent fact that almost all the people who have embarked on the job of taking premies to task in a Prem Rawat argument here have left in frustration concluding that it is the followers resilience, not the sense of their arguments, that is superior. I remember a Canadian lawyer, who gave up trying to argue here, complimented me that I was one of the most even-handed voices he'd come across in a debate and how notable it was that even I had been driven to the limits of patience trying to argue with Momento and Jossi. Do you know how many people have given up this article because they see it as an impossible task matching PR's followers zealous commitment? I would estimate that it runs into dozens. Surely it is reasonable therefore a) that one of the few remaining opposing ex-followers voices has a tone of genuine frustration b) there is some alarm and concern about the past repeating itself given the return of banned editors who have not expressed their reformed intentions and who's actions suggest the opposite b) Followers of Prem Rawat here should reasonably back off and allow more impartial voices to review the article. I might remind you that I was not banned for a year. It was only the followers. I was also being judged in that Arbcom process. My incivility and 'disruptive' presence apparently attracted quite a bit more sympathy than theirs. Have they returned with a different attitude? If so exactly what is the extent of their remorse or reform? PatW (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton says your attempt to let Ronk (who he/she?) gain some insight into this article's past was "... an attempt to divide the editors working here now, to make it impossible for them to cooperate. The essence of "disruptive" I would think"

Seeing as it was Rumiton, Momento and Jossi who were judged by the Wiki arbitration process as being the guilty parties - and banned - for disruption, can such irony (or should I say 'hypocrisy'?) really escape them? I doubt it escapes many others! But I seriously wonder if Ronk is among them.

And I wonder who Jossi would be liaising with, if he ever wanted to get his "Master"'s voice aired on Wikipedia again? Surely not Momento or Rumiton?

PS This is in no way intended to suggest that Ronk might be in league with such media-manipulators. (Though it's not impossible to envisage that, in trying to make their 'master's' message more amenable, might want to make contact with someone in Ronk's position, and attempt to influence his/her impartiality).

Which, quite frankly, is where, in my opinion, Wikipedia fails as a reputable source (as far as BLPs- Biographies of Living Persons is concerned). Revera (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that understand the history of this debate (I have read both Arbitrations.) I have some serious concerns regarding POV and COI on this article, and would again ask that no edits be made to the article. Ronk01 (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As for editing the article, I offer my apologies if I have contravened any previous ruling. I thought the criterion concerned only "disruptive" edits. My recent edit was simply to correct a matter of grammar (ie "universal" used grammatically incorrectly as a comparative).

However, I wonder why this article has suddenly been considered to be under your jurisdication' (as it were) Ronk. Care to say something about yourself, and perhaps give a brief background to why you're concerned with the Prem Rawat article? Revera (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My request applied only to addition or deletion of content, not uncontested copyediting. I apologize for any confusion. This article is under my "jusridiction" as MEDCAB meidator. I have been editing Wikipeida for over five years under various IP's (not socking though) And a few months ago, I finally decided to start an account. My primary interest is in medicine, but on Wikipedia, most of my work is in mediation and anti-vandalisim, though I did recently conduct a rather successful merge of a few articles relating to the cardiac skeleton. My interest here is as a mediator only, I have no COI. Ronk01 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify - this article isn't under Ronk01's jurisdiction, or anybody else's for that matter. MedCab isn't an official body, so doesn't have any power. MedCab mediators can assist parties to find a workable compromise, and, if appropriate, gain agreement with editors that during this process they won't edit the article, but that is purely voluntary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I used jurisdiction loosely, to reflect the terminology used by other editors. And my request was purely voluntary, so that the editors could work this out without edit warring. I appreciate your input PhilKnight, but I believe that the editors of this page know enough about dispute resolution here on Wikipedia such that your explaination is rather redundant and frankly, disruptive to this discussion in my humble opinion. Ronk01 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you're here Phil, would you tell us whether PatW's and Revera's comments above contravene "Any editor may be banned from any or all of the Prem Rawat articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty". I find his posts uncivil and an unprovoked attack on me and others and I shouldn't have to put up with it.Momento (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ronk, but is your assumed 'jurisdiction' of this article valid? "MedCab is unofficial and doesn't have any authority. So MedCab mediators can't place articles under their jurisdiction". So says another editor on your talk-page, and I'm sure we'd all benefit from some clarification on this, at least in the interests of communal trust and respect of those who haven't yet 'blotted their copy-book', as it were.

And as for Momento's subjective reaction to my posts (all of them?), perhaps he'd like to specify what precisely gets his goat, and what - precisely - he finds unprovoked or incivil. Revera (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Revera, I should have introduced myself - I'm a coordinator of MedCab. I fully agree MedCab is completely unofficial, and doesn't have any authority. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi PhilKnight, and thanks for introducing yourself. I'm still puzzled as to why Ronk should say the following: "this article is under my "jusridiction" (sic) as MEDCAB meidator (sic)".'' And, as my question was directed to Ronk, rather than yourself, perhaps Ronk might like to say something in the hope of clarifying this rather odd situation? Maybe by giving some indication as to what MEDCAB is? (I've searched Wiki and can find no reference to it). Revera (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize profusely regarding this, I should have been more clear, I am the Mediator for this article (this position carries no power whatsoever) when you asked about jurisdiction, this is what I thought you refered to. Once again, my request that no eidts be made to the page was just that, a request. I was under the mistaken impression that you understood this, and once again, I apologize, and ask that we return to the issue at hand, Ronk01 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Ronk. Could I make one request? - that the page about MEDCAB (aka Mediation Cabal) shows up when entering those terms into the search field? Would help a lot! Revera (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronk, I don't think you are filling anyone with confidence right now. For the last week or so, we have seen major incivilities, baiting and personal attacks going unremarked on, amid total confusion as to what you are doing here. This cannot end fruitfully, and I want no part in it.

To Revera, just type WP:MEDCAB into the search field, thish should bring up the page. To the person who is not signing their comments, I am not considering unsigned comments, so please sign. Ronk01 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what happened there. It was me. Rumiton (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well then Rumiton, the same problem has happened to me in the past. TO address your concerns, this is a very difficult topic to mediate, since all parties are so polarized, so that no matter who is meidating, someone is going to get angry, and make things worse. That fact is inevitable, but once we can all calm down, we can work on resolving our disputes, which extend far beyond the sentence that has been hacked to death over the past two weeks. Ronk01 (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The topic of this mediation is irrelevant. And the issue at hand, and the issue you were asked to mediate, is very simple. And that issue is "should the sentence be in the lead". Since Wiki lead says "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", the answer is obviously "no".[3] However, rather than impartially support common Wiki practice you have ignored the reason I asked for mediation and become involved in peripheral stuff that has been investigated, argued and resolved years ago. As I have said many times, first things first. If you don't have the knowledge or strength to ask that Wiki practices be followed, to quote Rumiton - "This cannot end fruitfully, and I want no part in it".Momento (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, I will end this mediation and give my reccomendation. It is my reccomendation that the sentence be retained, but not in the lead, since it really has no place there. I would reccomend that it be moved to the "Teachings" section. If any party has an issue with this, please post below, and keep on topic. Parties who are uncooperative, violate probation on this article, or erase other parties comments will be reffered to an uninvolved administrator to be topic banned, likely indefintely. Ronk01 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronk, please carry on mediating. Don't think that because a couple of people here find your presence challenging that your involvement is not welcome. You have my vote of confidence. I agree with all your evaluations and recommendations and welcome your input and good faith however unofficial your 'mediator-ship' is. I absolutely refute Momento's allegation that the debates of the past were properly 'investigated, argued and resolved years ago'.PatW (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of leaving, I have been asked by an Administrator to mediate this article long-term. Above, I was stating my reccomendations regarding the ongoing mediation for the sentence. Ronk01 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The easy thing is taking it out of the lead because it clearly doesn't belong. But where do you think it belongs? I can see it could fit in the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article but I can't see how it could fit in the very condensed summary of numerous sources in the "Teachings" section.Momento (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronk, you are making my head spin. You say "Very well then, I will end this mediation and give my reccomendation..." and an hour later you say "I have no intention of leaving, I have been asked by an Administrator to mediate this article long-term." Mediators need to establish trust with their clients. Please do so. Rumiton (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I have had some trouble with people hacking on my account so most of my posts have had some major delays. What I mean is that I am ending the mediation for the sentence, I believe that moving the sentence (providing that it is properly cleaned up) would be a suitable compromise. To respond to Momento, I would reccomend tha I be edited into some sort of explaination of how the teachings of Rawat have changed over the years. The information in this sentence is valuable, and does reflect accurate sourcing. Ronk01 (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Rawat's history - the official version?

Divine Light Mission is a notable and important part of Rawat's history. As such, shouldn't the admirably concise entry in Hutchison Encyclopedia's (a reputable and widely-available publication) be - at least - referred to in the article?

It reads, in full:

Divine Light Mission

Religious movement founded in India in 1960, which gained a prominent following in the USA in the 1970s. It proclaims Guru Maharaj Ji as the present age's successor to the gods or religious leaders Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. He is believed to be able to provide his followers with the knowledge required to attain salvation. Article © Research Machines plc 2009. All rights reserved.

The Hutchinson Encylopedia entry on 'Divine Light Mission' Revera (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You present an interesting point, I would like to see this considered for a possible mention in the article. Ronk01 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)\\

You must be new here. Rawat/aka Maharaj's claim to divinity has been a bone of contention for many years here.

However, as welcome as new/fresh insights on the disputes may be, may I suggest that a mere reading of the Arbitration documents in no way qualifies you to pass judgement on what has been a long drawn-out conflict to get the facts presented equitably? Please don't take this as a personal insult. But please DO take the trouble to educate yourself re the history of this long-standing dispute before you jump in at the deep end, as it were.

If you haven't already.

With respect. Revera (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am new here actually, I am the MEDCAB mediator for this article, I started last week. I actually have read much of the history of this article (as mush as one person can bear to read), I was just giving the ArbComs as examples. Ronk01 (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note the difference between what Rawat says about himself and what a source says about what Divine Light Mission said.Momento (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing for you to consider Momento, what people say about themselves (especially those in controversial positions) is often unreliable, much as is information from detractors of those persons. Ronk01 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat: "I am God!", Divine Light Mission: "He's God!!", Press: "Do you say you're God?", Prem Rawat: "No. Ask my followers", Press: "We did and they said you are", Rawat "I never said that", Rawat followers: He never said that!", Detractors "Yes he did!!" - Ronk - "???"PatW (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Wikipedia should provide an account of that discussion, not make a decision one way or the other, remember, Wikipedia is not a place for political or religious debate. Ronk01 (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no such discussion. Could you please first resolve the issue of the lead sentence?Momento (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I refer to the claims that Prem Rawat is implying autodefication, this is an important issue, and should be addresed. Regarding the sentence, there is no consensus on any action. Once again, if yuo have not done so already, Please vote on the mediation casepage. Ronk01 (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, Ronk01, can you provide a link to that mediation page?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01, Wiki requires reliable sources not PatW's opinion. Here's the link Rainer [4].

My opinions aside, Ronk is right to express concern about the lack of reference to Prem Rawat's claims to be God. Momento's response 'There is no discussion' is his way of saying 'case closed' 'we won'. There has been, since the inception of the article, consistent ongoing discussion of this topic which can be easily resurrected. There are reliable sources that report, quite correctly, that PR spoke "out of both sides of his mouth" about being God. It is an important issue that keeps coming up and which followers have successfully minimised after many revisions. Understandably there is reluctance to reopen this debate as most of us are tired of it. However if Ronk and others see fit to reopen the issue I would support that in principle. PatW (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I should have asked- Momento what do you mean by your response above: "There is no discussion"? PatW (talk)

There is no discussion for anyone to "provide an account of". Your rhetorical discussion is your opinion, not a summary of reliable sources.Momento (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, there is a legitimate argument here, for both sides, please do not disregard the documentary Lord of the Universe which gave evidence for both sides. Ronk01 (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did I disregard LOTU?Momento (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

LOTU gives some very good evidence for Prem Rawat stating (or at least strongly implying) that he is god. At the same time, the film also gives direct evidence that he does not claim deity, so there is a valid discussion here, and I believe that this is truly what is at the heart of the controversy. The debate over the sentence in question is simply a superficial reflection of this underlying debate. I hate to make matters worse than they were when I came here, but I think we need to come to a consensus regarding coverage of autodefication claims before we can settel down to nitpicking every individual sentence of the article. Ronk01 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous articles in Wikipedia covering issues and people about which there are strong and opposing views. And Wiki policy is not to pick sides but to edit impartially. You are now saying that you cannot resolve a simple issue of common Wiki practice without deciding which way you want to think? Perhaps you should resign from the Mediation Cabal because you have lost sight of its objectives.Momento (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, you have a pattern of inviting third parties to back you up over pro-Rawat revisions but then showing your teeth when they investigate the history and duly observe cracks in the foundations on which you are building the pretence of a stable article. Isn't it about time you were a little more open to the possibility that these people (who are far more impartial observers than either you or I) might actually be right? At least they deserve more respect than you show. PatW (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, I am trying to say (in the most impartial way possible) that Prem Rawat's alleged claims of deity need to be discussed in the article in some detail, since the information is out there, and Wikipedia seems to simply ignore it. Additionally, my personal views of Prem Rawat are not public, and will remain so for the sake of this mediation. By the way Momento, I have been asked by an Admin to mediate this article long-term. Ronk01 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Which administrator has the authority to decide that you should mediate this article long term?Momento (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Every editor has the authority to make a request. Long term mediation is apparently needed for this topic, though it was pretty quiet until recently. If it doesn't work out with Ronk01 then I suggest making a request of the WP:MEDCOM.   Will Beback  talk  10:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly true, Will, but Ronk seems to believe that coming from an administrator (whoever he/she might be) the request carries more authority. It now seems clear that you were right about the floodgates thing. For some months, the article has met the unofficial criterion for editor agreement: "An article that may not be what any editor might have written themselves, but with which they all can live." I can now see another pretty rotten couple of years ahead where we waste a great deal of time resurrecting a bunch of long-dead controversies, to end up in approximately the same place. Those who do not like the current version (and in some large respects I am one) might do well to consider that rigorous application of Wikipedia principles led to it, especially regarding the use of the best sources. In the last few months, we have seen the standards for a living biography tighten, if anything. Let us now leave "reasonably OK" alone and set about more productive tasks. Yes? Rumiton (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes!   Will Beback  talk  11:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

To Rumiton, the current article has some glaring errors that don't conform to "rigorous application of Wikipedia principles". The lead sentence in question is an obvious one. I, naively, thought there would be unanimous agreement to improve the article by removing it, since Wiki clearly says "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". But from the moment I suggested rectifying this error, instead of a collegial acceptance of Wiki principles and therefore recognition that it should be removed, I have been personally attacked and the discussion sidetracked. I too can see "another pretty rotten couple of years ahead" if this attitude is allowed to continue. But I, for one, will not stop editing this article because some editors might ignore Wiki principles, policies and guidelines. I will do as I have done in this case, which is propose changes based on Wiki principles, policies and guidelines and make every effort to ensure that they are followed. If editors do not respect this approach I will ask MedCom or ArbCom to intervene. Wiki articles should not become "no go zones" because legitimate editing is stonewalled and editors attacked. This position should be welcomed by all editors.Momento (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has had a rather turbulent history, with at least two ArbComs, multiple mediations both formal and informal, and likely countless RfC's and other forms of third party involvement. Clearly editors who can cause this havoc need long-term mediation, whether by myself, or by an official mediator. (Believe me, if I thought I could, I would drop this case in a heartbeat) And at this time, until another mediator can be found (I reccomend, like Will, that you go to MEDCOM) I will have to stay here. Please note that above, I have posted my reccomendations for this specific case, and am answering questions regarding only that. Ronk01 (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please tell us which administrator has the authority to decide that you should mediate this article long term? Since it is extraordinary that one administrator can tell an editor, who would "would drop this case in a heartbeat", that they must mediate it. And who can make decisions about an article under probation without consultation with any other editors.Momento (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I must clear up some misconceptions, first, I was not ordered to mediate, I will only be here until another mediatior can be brought in. Second, any uninvolved Administrator can enforce topic bans on disruptive editors here without any form of editor consultation, as per ArbCom. O hope that helps. Ronk01 (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. You said you were "asked by an Admin to mediate this article long-term" and I asked "who has the authority to do that?", which you have not answered. Clearly you feel compelled to comply with that request because you "would drop this case in a heartbeat" but "you have to stay here"! I don't think it fair that you can be compelled to do something you don't want to do? And I didn't ask whether an "Administrator can enforce topic bans on disruptive editors here without any form of editor consultation", I know that. So I ask again "which administrator asked you to mediate this article long term"? And are you now saying that this anonymous admin is able to appoint a mediator, no one has asked for, who we are supposed to accept?Momento (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not able to disclose the identity of the individual who asked me to mediate this article as they do not wish to become embroiled in this mess. Secondly, I repeat that I am only here until another mediator can replace me, as there seems to be consensus that mediation is needed, though there appear to be only two or three editors who appear to oppose my mediation here. By the way, there are plently of people who can make decisions about articles under probation without editor consultation. Ronk01 (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous admin who doesn't want to get embroiled calling the shots! Your account being hacked! I suggest you check with ArbCom whether an anonymous admin can impose long term mediation on this article.Momento (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this discussion is bringing the parties any closer to consensus. No one here disagrees that mediation is needed. In fact, it was Momento who made the request. Off-topic discussions about "who said what to whom" should go somewhere else. The mediation talk page, perhaps.   Will Beback  talk  11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for "long term mediation" which is what Ronk01 and I are discussing. And my request was for mediation about one specific sentence which has been done. I would appreciate you retracting the inference that I "requested the long term mediation" that Ronk01 and I are discussing. And I would appreciate your view as to whether an anonymous admin can compel Ronk01 to mediate this article.Momento (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Is the Aldridge dispute settled?   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat my self Will. You state above that I "made the request" for the "long term mediation" Ronk01 and I were discussing. This isn't true. So I would like you to retract that false claim.Momento (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a mis-understanding here, Momento. I interpreted your above paragraph the same way as Will. You wrote "And my request was for mediation about one specific sentence which has been done.", which I interpreted as meaning that you in your opinion the mediation has been completed/settled. If this isn't the case, the please clarify. Savlonn (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussions of improvements to the article. If you want to talk about the mediation itself, there's a page for that. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-22/prem rawat   Will Beback  talk  12:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01 wrote "I am ending the mediation for the sentence, I believe that moving the sentence (providing that it is properly cleaned up) would be a suitable compromise". And for the third time Will retract your false claim.12:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So we're all done? If so, thanks everyone for their efforts, and especially Ronk01 for his mediation. Moving forward, I suggest that we request formal mediation by the Mediation Committee if there are any further disputes.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence to be cleaned up

I have moved the sentence here from the lead for cleaning up before placing it in the "Teaching" section. Momento (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over societal aims.

If this is still in dispute I'd like to wait pending the start of formal mediation.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Will, didn't you write "So we're all done? If so, thanks everyone for their efforts, and especially Ronk01 for his mediation". And wasn't his decision that he is ending the mediation into the sentence and his decision, of the three options we voted on (keep, remove or move to the teaching section) was to "move the sentence (providing that it is properly cleaned up)"! So now you have decided it isn't going to be moved or cleaned up. That days of mediation and discussion are now going to be ignored!Momento (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence wasn't "cleaned up" and moved, it was deleted.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

At the *very* least, it should be cleaned up and moved, via consensus, before it's deleted. That was a ridiculous edit attempt. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That was quick. We couldn't reach consensus and that's why we had mediation. I have asked Ronk01 to clarify.Momento (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my silence over the last week was taken as acquiescence to everything that's been going on, I forgot to throw up an "On Holiday" flag, but I've been away, scuba diving in Cozumel for a week, and somehow didn't feel overly compelled to check in here while I was gone, go figure! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, until the sentence is cleaned up, it needs to remain in the lead. If the content is still in dispute, I am going to refer this to formal mediation. Ronk01 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refer this to formal mediation.Momento (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I do that, I would like a majority of participants to agree to formal mediation, please vote agree, or disagree below. 2/3 majority required. Ronk01 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I just blink and miss Momento's latest effort to clean-up this sentence, or is he just giving up and wanting to move directly to mediation? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 04:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely don't understand what that sentence is intending to say. How can it ever be "cleaned up"? As far as I can see, and I have been watching Prem Rawat pretty closely for quite a long time, he has always said that peace could only come to the world one individual at a time. Maybe the source got confused about the 1970's "World Peace Tours", which were, I would suggest, Peace Tours that took him around the World, rather than tours intended to pacify the warring nations. Rumiton (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Our job is not to watch the subject closely and then report on our findings. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If you'd like to re-read the sources and come up with a better summary that'd be fine.   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Will, I do understand that. The problem is that I don't know of any other source that has described such a shift in emphasis. Do you know of any that do? Rumiton (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going in a circle. Aldridge is a scholar published by a reputable publishing house. We don't need other sources to confirm what he says. He has a significant point of view and we're only devoting a sentence to it. We can summarize other sources in other sentences. Let's just focus on what this source says about this subject. As if we haven't spent enough time on this already...   Will Beback  talk  11:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree, I am thoroughly sick of it myself. And I am not being wilfully obtuse, I just can't understand what Aldridge meant. Really, I don't much care. It's only one small, albeit incomprehensible sentence. I would rather see it discarded, for the benefit of the article, and I don't see why keeping it seems such a big point, but if it is, so be it. Rumiton (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who said what. A sentence shouldn't be in the lead if it introduces material that isn't presented in the article. End of story.Momento (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we've already dealt with that part - the "move". Now we're discussing the "cleanup".   Will Beback  talk  12:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

But how, Will? How? If you can tell me what you believe Aldridge meant by his statement, we can both try to produce it in readable English. Deal? Rumiton (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of Aldridge was the Rawat has changed his focus from world peace, to "inner peace" simple as that. Ronk01 (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly simple. But all sources tell us that from an early age he was teaching the same techniques of inner peace that his father taught him. He continued to teach them upon his arrival in the west, and he has never changed them. Rumiton (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So if that is indeed what Aldridge is saying, then it is an extraordinary claim and should be looked at very carefully. (I will be away on a holiday for a couple of days, starting now. Bye.) Rumiton (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We are indeed going in circles. Please review the sources listed at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 43#World peace. There is nothing "extraordinary" in the claim that Guru Maharaj Ji was characterized as promising world peace in the early 1970s.   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then, we might say that he has gone through three phases, an initial "inner peace" phase in his early years, then a "Worldn Peace" phase in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's, and then another "Inner Peace" phase from the Mid 80's to present. This seems to hold to avalible evidence and sourcing, unless I am seeing this differently. Ronk01 (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Aldridge, round #346

Here's the relevant passage from Aldridge. (I had to type damn thing in, so folks had better be appreciative) Note that he goes into detail about how the movement's message changed, and used some categories that are widely used in the scholarly field. The last passage is the one we're actually summarizing.

• The categories world-rejecting, world-affirming, and world-accommodating are put forward as ideal types. Any given religious movement may well exhibit features of more than one type, and this can give rise to bitter internal conflicts. One example is the Divine Light Mission, which originated in India in the 1930s as part of the Radhasoami movement, an offshoot of Sikhism. The DLM was consolidated as an independent movement in the 1960s, and brought to the West in 1971 by the founder's youngest son, the thirteen-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji. Initially, the movement stressed its world-rejecting, ascetic origin. It sought to recruit young people disillusioned with the counterculture. Devotees ('premies') were invited into the spartan and celibate communal life of the ashram, or 'premie house', where they would be instructed by senior practitioners known as 'mahatmas'. Guru Maharaj Ji was seen as a saviour, the Satguru or Perfect Master, who would usher in the millennium. But after the dismal failure of its sparsely attended Millennium '73 festival in the Houston Astrodome, the movement adopted a world-affirming position. It offered 'the Knowledge', in the form of techniques of meditation, to a diverse clientele who were not expected to join an ashram. The trappings of Asian faith were abandoned as the movement became overtly Westernized. [..] Prem Rawat claims to offer practical methods by which anyone can achieve spiritual tranquility. Originally he aspired to bring about world peace, but now he focuses on the needs of the individual, which he says take priority over the demands of society. Elan Vital has sought to move out of the spotlight of adverse publicity, and has gravitated towards the world-accommodating type of religious movement.
  • Alridge, Alan — Religion in the Contemporary World (2007) — p.59</ref>

Here's Blau (again - I had to type this in):

• The three day event... was said to herald "a thousand years of peace for people who want peace." The idea was that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace of "knowledge" of a source of energy inside them. To do this, they would have to use techniques taught by "disciples" of the guru... [..] But at a news conference Maharaj Ji, asked if here were a messiah, responded, "Please do not presume that. I am humble servant of God, trying to establish peace in the world."
  • Blau, Eleanor (November 12, 1973), "Guru's Followers Cheer 'Millennium' in Festivities in Astrodome", New York Times

Here is the first version posted by Pergamino/Jossi

• He is said to offer practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity by anyone; originally he aspired to bring about world peace, but now his focus is on the needs of individuals, which according to him take priority over societal demands.[5]

That version was almost a verbatim copy, so I rewrote it slightly:

• He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.[6]

Pergamino reverted that change, and eventually altered it to read:

• He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over societal aims.

Then Momento added material from Blau. This is the current version:

• He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over societal aims

I suggest we drop Blau and go back to the version I posted:

• He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.

That is close to the source, and I think it's intelligible. If we want to summarize Blau we can do so in a separate sentence. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I object to the use of the "though", because it suggests a contradiction in substance, where in the original quote there is none. And thanks, Will, for your transcription effort, it does make things easier, I think.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The "though" is a replacement or paraphrase of the "but" in the original. At the risk of edging towards plagiarism, we can make it that much closer. And since this is apparently so controversial, at least on this talk page, we can even add attribution:

• According to sociologist Alan E. Aldridge, Rawat says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone. He originally aspired to bring about world peace, but now he places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.

Better?   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And the second sentence should show that it is Alridge's understanding, and not be stated like an acknowledged fact. Perhaps something like: "...tranquility by anyone; originally aspiring to bring about world peace, he is said to now place his attention on helping individuals rather than society". And then there should follow a statement from another scholar (Geaves?), stressing the continuity of the teachings, for balance.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We already cite Geaves 12 times in this article, which is already too much for some folks. If you want to cite him again, then start a fresh mediation for that. As for your other suggestion, we could put "he is said to" in front of every assertion in the article. It really doesn't add anything. If you're still worried that readers wil misunderstand the material, we can write:

• According to sociologist Alan E. Aldridge, Rawat says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone. Aldridge writes that Rawat originally aspired to bring about world peace, but now he places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.

That makes it absolutely clear that this is Aldridge's opinion.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Do you agree that a balancing statement should be added?--Rainer P. (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No. There's no need to "balance" every sentence in the article. If, independently, there are other views that are significant we can discuss those separately. This thread is exclusively concerned with improving the Aldridge material. Are there any other comments about this draft?   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

While I won't be for long, I am still mediating this article, and I am going to ask for a vote on Will's proposition, simply vote yes or no. Thank you. Ronk01 (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can live with that. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so do I.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It's an exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources, not just one. It is also UNDUE WEIGHT - the "Teachings" section doesn't state any individual's opinion and Aldridge shouldn't be given an entire sentence (out of 7) for his opinion.Momento (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The main problem I had was the implication that he developed a whole new ball game when World Peace proved harder to get going than he thought. The important thing is the fact that he has taught the inner peace techniques throughout, and I think that is clear now. Rumiton (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, strangely, it looks like we're going to have consensus here! High-fives! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, the sentence proposed by Will has near total consensus, please make the change as soon as possible. Ronk01 (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

er.. Yes ...sorry PatW (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased the absurd sentence has finally been removed from the lead. But, as I pointed out weeks ago, we have now given one source a fifth of the teachings section to voice his unique perspective. The simple solution is to re-locate Adridge material to the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article where it will be less intrusive and not so unbalanced.Momento (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We've spent enough time to the issue. Since April 27, we've written over 20,000 words on this page, mostly connected to this 41-word passage. While a variety of views have been expressed in the past six weeks, the entire 16-thread discussion has been motivated by one editor. With the sole exception of that editor, we've all agreed on a revision that was intended to address the issues he raised. It's time to move on, preferably to other topics entirely. Personally, I resent the tendentious suggestion that we spend any more time on this matter.   Will Beback  talk  09:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My apology for the late vote, not that it makes any difference at this stage. Having read through the discussion I think it would have been better to remove the sentence, but I'm glad to see that the matter has been resolved. --Zanthorp (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Other mediation efforts

Regarding formal mediation, if a truly even-handed mediator can be found I would be in favor of it. This person will distinguish him/herself by offending all parties equally (we are impossible to equally please.) Rumiton (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Placing prior conditions on mediation isn't helpful.   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep these discussions separate.   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think neutrality is an unreasonable precondition. I was just suggesting a method by which neutrality might be identified. Rumiton (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What method is that? Do we ask potential mediators to please try to offend everyone to see if they qualify? That sounds like a bad way to start mediation. ;)   Will Beback  talk  18:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If the article cannot get formal mediation, another option would be to re-post the case to the Mediation Cabal "cases awating mediators" docket. I will breif any new mediatior on the situation here. Ronk01 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just let him/her come with an open mind? Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a request via email (form will not accept this article title) to MEDCOM for formal mediation on the grounds that the previous mediation was closed on the basis that the Project Prem Rawat WP:RAWAT would provide the structure within which editing of this and related articles would proceed, and as that is not how some editors are intent upon working, it is invitable that current impasse would arise. The logic must be for MEDCOM to once again take over the process and if that doesn't work then a return to Arbitration will be required. Once I have an acknowledgement from MEDCOM I'll put a notice on editors talk pages.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Nick, MEDCOM cannot accept a request via email, since an RfFM is an official act, and all official acts must be conducted in open forum. Second Rumiton, when editors come in here with open minds, they are quickly swayed to one side or the other. Instead, they need to come in knowing what is facing them. Ronk01 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Er yes, thanks for stating that Ronk ... and as and when someone explains what work around I should use, I'll do that, as it is I simply followed the instructions re:contact if the RfFM form wouldn't play ball --Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead, they need to come in knowing what is facing them. Not sure what to say about that. Seems rather untransparent. We'll see how it pans out. Rumiton (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, my name is not included in the WP:RAWAT members' list. Can I be? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"This project page can be edited by all members. To become a member, please write a short message in the members section" = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat#Members --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To join the project you have to know the secret handshake, or go through the initiation ;)   Will Beback  talk  10:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Request filed as Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat5. It will now be up to the MEDCOM whether to accept or reject the request.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat5. Four mediations and two ArbCom cases. Enough is enough. Nothing has changed in the last year or two. Let's try to leave the articles alone until there's an actual cause for editing.   Will Beback  talk  10:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    I agree with the sentiment but I've no confidence that it will be universally shared, and if we are going to be faced with a commitment from some editors to work on the articles whatever the cost, then I'd rather we had a framework for sensible working. The only way I can see that happening is under permanent Mediation.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Strongly Agree with Will here. --JN466 02:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Since my only purpose here was to mediate the sentence debate, which has been resolved, I will close the MEDCAB case. Goodbye all, and good luck. I will be going on a long Wikibreak, so I might take a while to respond to comments. Ronk01 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous faults with this article. 1) The Charisma and Leadership" section, does any other "leader" have a section like this (The Pope, Obama, Pied Piper)? Anything of value in this section should be incorporated into the article. 2) "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses"? Why is this in the lead? The only mention in the article is "Sociologist Stephen A. Kent wrote that as a 22-year-old hippie, he found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, though his companions spoke about it glowingly". At the very least it should be paired with the sentence above it - "He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma.[5][10][11] and has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,[7][12]"Momento (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Intellectual content" again?! We have discussed that material across 13 talk page archives.[7] Before even suggesting that we revisit that issue I'd request you please re-read all 13 sets of debates, and only raise it again if there's a significant point that hasn't already been discussed to death. Bringing up the same issues again and again is tendentious.   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)